Why did the Soviets Replace 7.62 Caliber AK with the 5.45

[@triggerfingerstudios]

You kind of missed the part where the SKS and the 7.52x39 were already invented, meaning the AK had no real choice in what caliber to use.

[@casperarms]

Well, yes, I don't deny it) The AK was created for an existing cartridge (as always happens in the weapons industry). I just didn't talk about the SKS because the video would have become too loaded

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

while the AK entered service later than the SKS the SKS and AK were planned at the same time. orginally the soviet military wanted to standardise on one cartridge for both the rifle replacement (the SKS), the light machinegun replacement (the RPD) and the submachinegun replacement (the AK). note that the SKS was considered a carbine not a rifle, but it was the rifle replacement, and the AK was not considered a submachinegun, just the replacement of the submachine gun's tactical role. It was quickly discovered that the AK could do the role of a rifle just aswell as the SKS so they ended up replaceing the SKS too, the only reason the SKS had any service life was because it was developed early enough to enter production before the AK, which had a longer developement.

[@huh-cb1rk]

​@@matthiuskoenig3378SKS was in production when the ak was still in design

[@zXPeterz14]

@@huh-cb1rktrue but the concept of both guns were created at the same time. They just produced the sks first as it was originally meant to be the standard infantry rifle while the ak was to replace just the smg’s

[@josephmontanaro2350]

What about the RPD?

[@simongrushka983]

7.62 x 39 has been adopted before AK. SKS used that ammo and they were supposed to be a main assault riffle (while AK was supposed to be a light support machine gun)

[@robertjones2811]

A testament to how good the ak line of firearms are.

[@vaclav_fejt]

@@robertjones2811 More like that the evolution of the bolt action rifle to the self-loading rifle had a dead end and the new concept of a rifle-submachine gun hybrid (id est assault rifle) was the way forward.

[@zaco-km3su]

Not quite. There was a similar cartridge before though.

[@chrisbrent7487]

AK was originally intended to fill the role of the SMG and the SKS of the main infantry rifle.

[@rtbdmd]

I don't think the 5.56 or the 5.45mm cartridges are going away any time soon. Even if they don't penetrate newer body armors, if you are taking hits from either cartridge you will stop what you are doing and seek cover (while the guy shooting at you has a buddy call in artillery fire or sends a drone). There are also no generally issued body armor systems that cover 100% of a soldier's body. IMO the armor penetration concern is overblown and the advantages of light weight and low recoil of the older cartridges still apply. Also, the US M-4 platform is lightweight, reliable and highly modular. It will continue to be used for a long time.

[@johngaither9263]

The US military will have replaced the 5.56 entirely by 2030. Is that "soon" enough?

[@spazemfathemcazemmeleggymi272]

-"They hated Jesus because he spoke the truth"

[@bloodking73]

Anything powerful enough to reliably defeat armor without needless expensive tungsten ammo, would require something fairly unwieldy

[@molot_hohlov]

>reliable in clean condition

[@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020]

the 5.56 is still the most balance of them all, when it comes to cost, weight and effectiveness

[@wOrLdOfEaRlY]

One note: The new russian calibre was not aksed for by the russian MOD. Its a project by Tula (they developed the round and Kalshnikov (they developed the rifle for it). This does not mean that the russian army will be equip with ether the round or the AK-22

[@Redmanticore]

testing it, like usa is still testing. 6.8 gun and ammo might be deemed as too heavy, for individual soldier, and for logistics purposes.

[@nomercyinc6783]

caliber. fiber. tire.

[@TheSkinnyMechanic]

Less recoil & Flatter shooting, you can carry more of it for the same weight. That is reason enough

[@daruween1398]

Also more velocity 🤑🤑🤑

[@KentuckyAk101guy]

Also the magazines aren’t as bad to deal with especially if you have a front grip on one

[@CR67]

Longer range. The AK47 sights go out to an optimistic 800m, but the round goes unstable at 400m and is an area of effect weapon beyond that. In Afghanistan, the Enfield rifles of the Mujahideen could safely engage Russian troops from a distance.

[@alaric_3015]

​@@CR67iirc the mujahideen have a nickname for AK-74 too because of their performance

[@CR67]

@@alaric_3015 I know they referred to the 5.45 bullet as the poisoned pill, because of its peculiar performance.

[@Nave4x4]

There was an episode of History Channel's "Tales Of The Gun" where Kalashnikov states that he was against the adoption of the 5.45mm. But this was in the early 2000's, way after the fall of the USSR...

[@JoyZofSoRRoW]

Yes. The clip they used was a video from the 90s where Eugene Stoner, AR-15/M16 inventor, met Mikhail Kalashnikov and talked about their respective weapons and the reasons any changes where made. Kalashnikov has also voiced his disagreement to switch calibers but as a loyal Soviet citizen he changed his design to meet his nations requirements.

[@DTinkerer]

@@JoyZofSoRRoW What video?

[@MoisesMartinez381]

​@DTinkerer it's on the history channel

[@jdsheleg8332]

The channel that shows spooky and conspiracy stories, instead of actual history?

[@Nave4x4]

@@jdsheleg8332 it used to be different in the 90's and early 2000's. But yeah, that one. 😆

[@Fisherman952]

The soviets made the switch to 5.45mm when they recieved captured m16s from veitnan. Thought the americans were on the something. Mikail kalasnikov opposed the 5.45mm and wanted to improve the 7.62x39mm

[@tatsuhirosatou5513]

7.62x39 was just them copying 8mm Kurtz

[@Fisherman952]

It was the fal rifle was originally chambered for 7.92x33

[@FinalFront]

The Yugoslavs did improve the 7.62x39 a bit when they introduced their M67 ball, which had a hollow cavity in the tip underneath the jacket which allowed the bullet to tumble much sooner after penetration. However the USSR stuck with the mild steel core M43 ball for a long time even after the Yugoslavs introduced the M67 ball. This same hollow cavity is what allows the 5.45 to tumble so rapidly as well, whereas 5.56 relies on velocity for fragmentation in flesh. Some Russian manufacturers began using M67 ball post-1991 in 7.62x39. Which as everyone knows the greatest advantage to using the smaller 5.45/5.56/5.8 is that a soldier can carry twice as much ammo, and in most battlefield situations it has been shown that each individual soldier being able to carry twice as much of a less powerful cartridge is more effective than a soldier carrying fewer of a more powerful cartridge.

[@Fisherman952]

@@FinalFront yugoslav ammo was alway a favorite of mine, wether fired from my mausers or AK. Way better then the steel and laqured soviet ammo. I still have a ton of it too.

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

​The Russians and in turn the Soviets already though had what was considered an intermediate round. They had the Fedorov Avtomat in 6.5 Japanese. Japan didn't consider that round big enough, at least for bolt actions, which is why they came up with the 7.7 Japanese. ​@@tatsuhirosatou5513

[@Kuraimizu9152]

Kinetic energy is more about speed than mass... "Speed kills armor"

[@tonyv8925]

The struggle for all armies around the world is to find a cartridge/caliber that can do everything a little bit. Long, accurate range, reliability, ease of manufacture, lighter recoil, penetration power and cost effective. The 5.56mm NATO round is good for short range engagements against enemy personnel, but that is all. 7.62mm NATO is better suited for longer range engagements and lightly armoured vehicles. Everyone is trying to find the "magic" caliber, if there is such a one. Thanks for this video.

[@KlaustheViking]

Kind of shows when the US Army when to the new rifle with a 6.8 cartridge, making it between the 7.62 and the 5.56. Rifle aside, sounds like somewhere between those two might suit that “do it all” round.

[@YouTubePrimer-zm1xi]

It's funny. The us switched to 30 06 because supposedly the 30 40 krag sucked vs the 7mm mauser. Then the 7.62x51 comes along which is like a glorified 30 40 krag. Then everything goes out the window and the 5.56 is standard. And now full circle with the 6.8 thing probably not much different than a 7mm mauser used in ww1.

[@stunningandbased5516]

Damn 100 years of gun technology just to circle back to low power rifle rounds. Federov Awtomat next-gen gun lmao

[@selfdo]

For man-handled arms, the 5.56 NATO is more than sufficient, even with the M249 SAW. The 7.62 x 51 is suitable for a sniper rifle, but also heavier crew-served automatic weapons.

[@Thekilleroftanks]

@@KZbinPrimer-zm1xi thats because it did. fun fact the 30-06 is 7mm mauser, because the m1903 springfield is a stolen mauser rifle, so they thought "were already stealing the designs of the rifle, might as well steal the round". another fun fact, mauser later sued the US government because they were using stolen tech in 1914 i believe. so when war broke out the court case was sidelined, and the US took the patients given to them for the court case and stole everything else they could get their hands on. and after the war settled with a million dollar settlement after the war.

[@elburropeligroso4689]

I know Serbia adopted a variant of the 6.5 Grendel. A souped up version of the 6.5 Grendel with a 7n6 sort of bullet would be interesting to see.

[@encompassthyeclipse7278]

Creedmoor

[@encompassthyeclipse7278]

My grendel shoots just as flat to be honest

[@testingmysoup5678]

​@@encompassthyeclipse7278I think the creedmore is too large, more like a special force round

[@MrSuba47]

@@encompassthyeclipse7278creedmore is excellent, but wears too much barrel and it is expensive.

[@Starcraft98marine]

@@MrSuba47the Japanese in WW2 used 6.5 variant. It was reportedly going right through Americans with little deformation/trauma due to it being to aerodynamic. The navy likewise used a 6.5 to punch through the hulls of lightly armored ships. Apparently the same issues with lethality came up

[@tdfmtig]

I wouldn’t want to be shot with either

[@sunriseboy4837]

Only sensible comment here!

[@m_hub3957]

i do not want someone to throw them at me LOL

[@boondocker7964]

I wouldn't want to be shot by a water pistol.

[@berryreading4809]

Great video 👍 6mm ARC, 6mm MAX, and especially 6.5 Grendel are all great cartridges sold primarily in the US market for AR-15 caliber conversions, but all of the above would be better suited in an AK pattern due to the larger neccessary bolt face diameter and the proper magazine curvature geometry... I think Serbia adopted 6.5G AK pattern systems for some type of sizeable contract for either their military or police, but I'm surprised more countries haven't been slowly working towards this goal... It's kind of the best of both worlds between 7.62x39 and 5.45x39, besting both without sacrificing much of anything besides a slightly higher cartridge weight that 5.45, but not 7.62x39. Although the AK platform isn't quite as modular as an AR-15, a bolt, barrel, recoil spring, and magazine are fairly easy items to reconfigure even in an AK once the decision is made to produce the new tooling... Plus Serbia and Russia (among others) already have 6.5G in production, so there isn't much need for load development or case/projectile designs as its already been done. Ammunition production line changes aren't extreme when compared to something that is much longer, or extremely high pressure, so tooling up ammo production wouldn't be prohibitively expensive... But I also understand the classic argument of hundreds of millions of cartridges already existing so why change for what on a modern battlefield is becoming more of a personal defense weapon while supporting more powerful beltfed MGs, high payload systems from automatic grenade launchers, mortars, artillery, guided munitions, drones, aircraft or vehicle mounted systems with high payload capabilties and autocannons... Do you really NEED a more powerful, flatter shooting, standard issue cartridge that does only slightly better at barrier or very very light armor penetration for the cost of the logistics involved? (like helmets or woven material, not hard plates) I mean it would 100% be beneficial, but I can see why most replacement cartridge programs "fail" or atleast have limited adoption, especially in a time of conflict or very likely conflicts on the horizon... But I'd take one of these new intermediate cartridges for a standard issue carbine any day over the stupid 6.8 NGSW round! That cartridge only makes sense for beltfed MGs, designated marksman rifles, or other special purpose uses, not a standard issue "carbine" cartridge! Which I'm sure is where it will end up assuming it actually gets adopted in any sizeable numbers in the near future...

[@buddermonger2000]

I think Serbia actually did it with normal 6.5 Grendel

[@robertjones2811]

@@buddermonger2000 Zestava M19. Excellent rifle.

[@adamg574]

@@buddermonger2000smart. It’s an awesome cartridge.

[@denisdegamon8224]

Yup I believe you are 100% correct in the assumption of the new US cartridge be used only in a specialty role in the infantry squad as a dedicated marksman. I am an ex Army Infantry officer and avid firearms Instructor and hobbyist for decades. That new round would burn up barrels at an alarming rate in combat, rendering a huge logistical nightmare and down time.

[@agammuhajir2902]

"It's not the size, it's how you use it" 😅

[@otterconnor942]

The 6x41 is a much better do-it-all cartridge. I was very disappointed that they chose a battle rifle cartridge again, instead of a high performance intermediate cartridge

[@realtalk6195]

The case length needs to be longer than just 41mm. Something like 44mm or 45mm sounds better. A longer, thinner cartridge is better than a wider, shorter one too. That allows more ammo to be fit into a magazine.

[@arxwa5278]

a thinner cartridge is worse for suppression since longer dwell times

[@random.3665]

Longer cartridges actually introduce their own set of problems, since the action needs to be longer in order to cycle and eject with a longer cartridge. For example, the US specifically switched from the 30-06 cartridge to .308 because they could get very similar performance out of a much shorter cartridge, which gave them more options when it comes to rifle design, since the action can now be over 1cm shorter.

[@encompassthyeclipse7278]

@@random.3665you can definitely tell the difference between 06 and 308 when hunting that’s for sure. I stand by my 30-06s, never shot a 308 I liked

[@CaffeineAndMylanta]

@@encompassthyeclipse7278modern commercial 30-06 is much more powerful than the traditional military stuff from 100 years ago. When they shortened it to make 7.62 NATO a different powder formula for at gave it similar performance to the original 30-06 despite the smaller case volume

[@jason200912]

Worse for feeding and close combat but better for long range and usually lighter if it's a .22 cal bullet

[@emillaugechristensen4398]

Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 In 1942 the Germans launched the FG 42. It has selective fire control, semi and full auto. It fires the 7.92×57mm Mauser - a full-power rifle cartridge. The FG 42 is also known for its accuracy and controllability. It is possible to make an assault rifle (or combat rifle), firing full-power cartridges, if one is willing to look in the right places.

[@nebiyuesayas5600]

Correct, but you're forgetting several major things about the FG-42 that make it suboptimal as an assault rifle: One, the FG-42 was only supposed to fire in single shot or short bursts. If you tried to use an FG for sustained fire like an LMG, the weapon's gas system would effectively destroy itself, and even the Germans were aware of this when creating training manuals. Two, the FG weighs 5 pounds (or 4-5 kilos), whereas an AKM weighs pounds/3 kilograms, or an M4 carbine which weighs 6.5 pounds/3 kilos. That doesn't sound like a lot, but for an assault rifle that's very heavy, which actually makes it a bit of a surprise for me that it was only used by paratroopers. Three, assault rifles are *by definition* chambered for intermediate cartridges, not to mention the FG was used more as a light support weapon than a proper infantry. The FG-42 would more likely be classified as automatic rifle, similar to guns like the BAR, Chauchat, or Fedorov-Avtomat. And finally, as noted in the video, militaries didn't *want* a standard combat rifle to use full-power cartridges, that's kind of the whole point. If they really did want to standardize on a battle rifle, NATO could easily have just stuck to the FN FAL or M14 (which there are modernized versions of), and these rifles do get used as DMRs, but they're not standard issue for a reason. Even the US's new .277 Fury round is sort of an intermediate between full-power and true intermediate cartridges.

[@LeonidSaykin]

2:17 a rifle with the two magazines of ammunition, classic meme

[@pendantblade6361]

With many nation states are investing in proper body armor for their troops, it's really only a matter of time before we start inventing Bolt guns.

[@kyoMcMushy]

No, but we are starting to see a rise of semi auto DMR rifles using full powered rifles rounds for a similar reason, and because of the growing range in modern combat.

[@constantinethecataphract5949]

​@@kyoMcMushy didn't those basically already exist but were called battlerifles?

[@yokaiou5848]

There is a Chinese sniper grenade launcher. It's a proto bolter.

[@kyoMcMushy]

@@constantinethecataphract5949 battle rifles are different to DMRs. They can overlap but battle rifles such as the SCAR H, G3 FAL, and many AR-10 configurations are basically used in the same way modern intermediate rifles are used. intended for close to medium range.

[@quakethedoombringer]

*XM7 has entered the chat*

[@BF-I-II-V-V-III-VII]

The truth is the Soviet changed caliber because the one guy in charge of making them died and no one knew how he was doing it. 😂

[@TheTeKuZa]

6:12 nice catridges

[@casperarms]

Pay attention to the 6x49 cartridge. It has an interesting detail - an additional groove at the bottom of the sleeve. This design allows you to counteract the stretching of the metal, which occurs due to the increased pressure of the powder gases. Plus, this groove increases the reliability of sleeve extraction

[@Rrgr5]

As far as I know that cartridge was made by the USSR in the late 80's, curiously was not the only one, the flechette PKM also was made, 11,5x54R, smooth barrel PKM that can sustain way more fire than the conventional, it was scrapped after the collapse, but...

[@Rrgr5]

As far as I know that cartridge was made by the USSR in the late 80's, curiously was not the only one, the flechette PKM also was made, 11,5x54R, smooth barrel PKM that can sustain way more fire than the conventional, it was scrapped after the collapse, but...

[@Rrgr5]

As far as I know that cartridge was made by the USSR in the late 80's, curiously was not the only one, the flechette PKM also was made, 11,5x54R, smooth barrel PKM that can sustain way more fire than the conventional, it was scrapped after the collapse, but...

[@Rrgr5]

As far as I know that cartridge was made by the USSR in the late 80's, curiously was not the only one, the flechette PKM also was made, 11,5x54R, smooth barrel PKM that can sustain way more fire than the conventional, it was scrapped after the collapse, but...

[@sebastian-FX357Z1]

At 400m range the targets is only half the size of your last fingernail. Target will be hard to hit without rifle-scope.

[@patrickholt2270]

In the new age of drone warfare, the combat distance has extended. So moving back to a higher calibre now makes sense, when the effective range of rifles needs to be longer than before. That is to say, in an environment dominated by artillery and FPV drones, close quarters and house-to-house fighting between infantry is much rarer, because the question of who can occupy the ground tends to be determined before soldiers can come that close.

[@prettyformality137]

Always good to see you upload

[@XYZ-eo8um]

A small offtopic: Considering what type of rifle US Army chose for tests, it really seems to me like the West is going back to battle rifles as their service weapons. Why it's that? Are military weapons evolving backwards or something? The cartridge of this rifle no longer seems to be the intermediate one, but almost full rifle one. Can someone actually explain it to me?

[@one-eyedghoul7542]

Just the changing landscape of warfare. 556 was invented for closer range encounters where a soldier has better chances with more controllable firepower. I guess with the war in Ukraine and others around the world the us is starting to see the need for more full power rifle cartridges

[@Mortablunt]

Idiocy. Every single assessment of weapons performance, for the past more than a century now has indicated smaller cartridges. You can carry more oven fire faster, with shorter splits between shots are more effective at winning fights, because he shoots first and shoots more usually wins. The US Army has an unhealthy obsession with this single shot rifleman myth, getting back 300 years, and it really gets in the way of realistic weapons development. We tried something like this back in the 1950s it was called the M14 and it failed horribly.

[@paulbarclay4114]

​@@Mortabluntthey are preparing for a new type of war Counter insurgency and cqb are being replaced Ww3 is looming

[@92HazelMocha]

So these new cartridges are fundamentally different than those before it. They had to achieve a 50% increase in chamber pressure to get the desired external and terminal ballistics, and to do this the cartridges are made of mixed metal materials (iirc both steel and brass cases). This also changed the design of the rifles themselves because they had to reliably accommodate this massive increase in pressure.

[@derekmartin2817]

Proliferation of body armor. The stainless casehead version of the 6.8x51 is running at 80000 psi pressure and can generate .270 rifle performance. 140 grain @2900 fps. 277 fury is an all brass case loaded at conventional pressures. And is much lower performance.

[@mcnuttington7122]

Looks like a sort of return of battle rifle cartridges

[@buddermonger2000]

Nah, these are intermediate. Look at the case length, 41mm, that's still intermediate.

[@andrewgates8158]

Battle diameter. Assault length

[@buddermonger2000]

@@andrewgates8158 Remember that pistol diameter is larger than rifle diameter

[@andrewgates8158]

@buddermonger2000 but velocity is sucky vs a rifle

[@buddermonger2000]

@@andrewgates8158 Yeah but it's just to illustrate that the diameter really has nothing to do regarding the caliber type

[@SillyGoose2576]

The second magazine in the handguard has to be the silliest concept i've ever seen.

[@VertisLee]

Yeah but it kept Soviet Engineers on a project.

[@evanburdick8503]

Really, the main reasons the 7.62x39 was used originally was - The simplification of manufacturing. 7.62x54R, 7.62x39 and 7.62x25 all used the same initial drilling for Barrel. Only the reaming was done differently - The RPD, and SKS already used the 7.62x39 so it was a proven cartridge - Though originally meant to be used in an SMG role, it was later implemented to replace the role of rifle, carbine and SMG so the 7.62x39 loosely fit the roles. Jack of all trades sort of thing

[@jeffkardosjr.3825]

I wonder if .32 ACP being popular amongst some Warsaw Pact countries was done for the same reason.

[@selfdo]

The SKS was still widely produced and issued. Not every Soviet trooper needed a select-fire weapon.

[@rafaellastracom6411]

6mm is the Goldielox caliber.

[@SonsOfDeForest]

who knew airsoft is the real best combat caliber xD. fun fact: the KAC PDW was an AR pattern SBR chambered in 6mm that never made it past prototype.

[@Oxide_does_his_best]

I would've liked a credit for using my videos

[@casperarms]

Of course!) I'll do it within a week

[@Oxide_does_his_best]

@@casperarms Still not done?

[@casperarms]

Hi! I added 50% of all video credits in the description, including to your channel ✨ I will finish most of the videos in the coming days

[@caelanshpak2007]

I still do not understand why the inventor of the AK-47 was so displeased with the new round yes the 762 does have a lot of power but it's slower and has less range the 5.45 has better accuracy and better range and when it hits a Target it does a lot more damage

[@komlakoff]

I guess the 5.45 tumbles more after it hits , making it more lethal

[@minhducnguyen9276]

Besides, why would he be concerned with which caliber the gun would fire? He invented the AK but the caliber wasn't chosen by him.

[@Eddy_Cullen]

Probably because he never had to carry a full combat load for long duration and fight on foot in basic infantry maneuvers. He was a tanker. He sat on his butt.

[@bamaboni]

As Kalashnikov said 'The biggest challenge to Firearms designers are Ammuniton designers' (Maybe it was Eugene Stoner who said that idk, one said it to the other tho)

[@herptek]

The universal mystery of firearms development is the question about which came first, the gun or the cartridge.

[@Bravebelly]

Great video! I love your channel man, it’s really good 👌🏼💯

[@casperarms]

Thank you!)

[@kb7.62]

I was unaware that the reds have made a similar 6.8 round . Thanks guys , good information

[@sillybilly121212]

They “reds” don’t exist anymore and haven’t since 1991

[@Kazako83]

Lol dude Russia haven’t been red since 1991

[@kb7.62]

@@Kazako83 I disagree. The mentality is ever present

[@average7.62enjoyer]

@@kb7.62 the reds moved out of russia in 1991 they live in NYC London or israel now

[@TheTeeWorldsfreak]

5.45 is a great round Especially for a rifle Low recoil, great range, good accuracy 7.62x39 was developed as an improved SMG ammo While the 5.56 / 5.45 was more like a downloaded "rifle" cartridge Only problem with 5.45 is with short barrel guns No offence, I love the AKs 74u, but it's effectiveness is limited Granted it's development was not for a general purpose rifle, but what we now consider as a pdw

[@VertisLee]

Take into consideration fact that not only were there vast stocks of 7.62 bullets in existence, the manufacturing investment to produce those rounds was quite significant. This is why the 7.92 ended up in a truncated 33m Kurz cartridge case and the 7.62 Soviet/Tzarist bullet ended up in the 39mm cartridge case. They are really rounds of convenience and quite "unbalanced" as a result. The British were spot on with their post-war .280 round for the EM-1 and EM-2. Had not the US Army overrode the European arms designers and manufacturers of the 1950s, including FN's FAL, which had its own proprietary ammunition and forced the introduction of the 7.62x51 NATO a new standard round would have developed for the Infantry of the Western armies. Everyone is now trying to capture the essence of the .280 British. The 6.5 Grendel looks very much like the .280 British

[@bajuszpal172]

Many thanks for the quite interesting overview. Probably there must be a separation between submachine guns - carbines and line army weapons or those for special operations. The 7,62 calibre is a reliable solution, and it is the only factor of sa 10 further ones to decide a military conflict. Paul,68

[@W.Stryker]

Some of my guys are retired US special forces. And they said they only used AK’s in Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al-Queda. They told me they preferred the 7.62 AK over the 5.45 because 7.62 was more common then 5.45. They also told me the 5.45 is not very accurate.

[@lukassilvan3844]

AKM /AK-74 is 16 inch barrel rifle 7,62x39 is good for short barrel rifle (10 inch) 5,56/5,45 for long barrel (16-20 inch)

[@Dannysoutherner]

You can carry a lot more 5.56 or 5.45 than you can larger bullets. Most gunfights are at reasonably short ranges so the guy who gets there the firstest with the mostest is likely to win the day. Your 7.62 doesn't do much good if you are out of ammo and the American still has pockets full of 5.56 to spend the day plinking at you with.

[@reefread1234]

Geography and purpose play more of a role armies are rigid by nature be glad you are not an army

[@23rdMS_Inf]

"Get there first with the most" - N.B.F.

[@tulisotilas]

O've seen literally zero (0) cases of war footage where the lighter ammo or having more of that ammo made a difference. Maybe in a desert. In Ukraine its pew pew and everyone is already dead. Its either 2-3 shots at target or 9001 shots at nothing. Arty and drones are used to keep heads down. Grenades when assaulting. 60 extra bullets are nice, but so are dead enemies and bullets not deflecting from smallest of brushes.

[@TheOneSoldierOfFortune]

As an ex serbian infantry soldier...I was once handed the AK74...served me well and usually hit what I wanted it to hit without beating me up too much. Then i was handed the AK74M and i was in love with 5.45

[@stephanoescavab942]

glad to see my boy oxide in your vid, absolute kino footage

[@AussieStandsWithRussia]

Also it wasn't replaced by 5.45. it was simply added to the current range

[@huh-cb1rk]

It will be 50bmg. They contracted Brandon heraiara to make it

[@casperarms]

😅😅

[@andrestrishak8292]

Hahaha!

[@davercreson5543]

" I just want to make evidently clear to all seeing the thumbnail, that is a Romanian AKM variant called the Pistol Mitraliera Model 1963 (PM md. 63). Arguably the best AK variant to date with it being used in many historical wars and near recent conflict. Goes to show how well respected it is that it can be just as easily mistaken for a soviet AK. "

[@VolkovVelikan]

You’re probably the only English speaking channel that talks about Russian military topics and equipment without bashing or simply barfing US propaganda. Good job!

[@dagored4077]

7.62 means you never have to say sorry.

[@Longshot88]

Unless they have armor... 😂

[@johnmcadam7493]

I've been fascinated with the RUSSO-UKR war for a number of reasons. One of them was trying to figure out why the Russians changed their Strategic Military Operations back to but retained the same caliber ( 5.45 ). A little off topic here but in-line with Kalashnikov himself ... After WW2 the Canadian Army wanted NATO to adopt the 7mm cartridge ( 284 caliber ). Canada has a long hunting tradition as comparable of that as the US. The British were on board but the US wanted the 5.56 ( 223 ). The British 303 was standard hunting rounds here in Canada, along with the necked down 7mm-308. It will take all medium sized game in North America saves grizzley's, kodiak's, and polar bears. The 7mm-08 cartridge is a 140 grain bullet that delivers as much energy down range as the 150 grain 308 and 30-06. It has a better BC than both and not as affected by windage and drag. It shoots flatter as well. The recoil is slightly more that the 243 but still good for new shooters. It has been overshadowed recently by the 6.5 Creedmore ( 260 caliber ). Again, the US dictates all terms within NATO: here we are 50 years later full circle back to what the original caliber should have been. There was nothing wrong with the FN-FAL or the G3. It was an excellent firearm. We could have saved millions of dollars on the retrofit if the decision was made to neck-down the 308. Hell .. take the 6.5 x 47 mm Lapua ... it's already developed and is a necked down NATO 7.62 !@#$ One further point, here we are ( yet again ) in the same territory as the 6.5 x 55 SE and the 7 x 57 mm cartridges all developed around the 1890's. My suspicion is that the Russians will adopt either the 6.7 x 45 or the 6.5 x 39 ( Grendel ). I think the Serbs have adopted the 6.5 Grendel. The 6.7 x 45 is the old Czech caliber. The question is now money. All said I think the Russians will opt for the 6.5 Grendel. No need for a new battle rifle. Thanks for reading !

[@jonathancathey2334]

Who ever did this, you are over looking a lot of details. The SKS rifle was the first rifle to use the 7.62x39mm cartridge. You are not including the fact that in Vietnam. There were many captured M16 rifles. The Vietnamese shared those captured M16s not only with the Soviets, but also the Communist Chinese. The Soviets understood the M16s faster lighter cartridge gave some advantages. Lighter weight ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition. The lighter weight cartridge also meant less felt recoil. Which will increase the chance of a individual soldier hitting their target. Plus there were a lot of studies done after WW2 and Korean War. Pretty muth all of those studies showed that the vast majority of infantry fire fights take place at 300 yards/meters or less. Infact most of the fire fights happened at a 100 yards/meters or less. Now there will always be exceptions, but for the most part. Infantry combat was getting done up close and personal. Anything over 300 yards/meters was going to be hit with some form of supporting fire ( artillery, air support, and tanks). But the biggest take away from these studies. Showed whoever could put down more accurate fire in a infantry fight, usually won the fight. So the Soviets looked at the advantages of the M16 rifle, and decided that this rifle was a technical leap forward. So the Soviets started to develop what is the AK-74 rifle. The AK-74 is a refined AKM rifle. The biggest difference is the 5.45x39mm cartridge. Also known as the poison bullet. The 5.45x39mm cartridge is designed to wound and maim the target. Exactly the same as the original M-16 5.56x45mm cartridge.

[@VertisLee]

Dont forget the bean counters who liked the lower cost per unit of the 5.56 and the logisticians who could now stuff 2 million rounds in a C-5A (lets say) instead of 1 million rounds of 7.62x51NATO.

[@chrisbrent7487]

As far as armor penetration faster and smaller are better. 6.5x39 sounds a lot like like 6.5 Grendel which is not exactly new.

[@user-03-gsa3]

Amazing video

[@casperarms]

Thank you!)

[@RichardBlazek-q8r]

What difference does it make? If it goes boom and the soldier is capable of hitting something then????

[@Longshot88]

If the other soldier can blow through your armor and hit you from farther away while you can do neither, it makes a huge difference

[@PassivePortfolios]

My guess is that Russia will go with either 6 mm or 6.5 mm x 39 for the new official cartridge. They will figure it all out in the testing, depending on the performance parameters required.

[@alanmcnew5376]

Chrome lining is for protection from corrosion and to make it easier to clean. Has nothing to do with using cartridges of 5.6 diameter.

[@Adam_True]

It's the case when Ivan hasn't been paying attention during English lessons!!!

[@hansblitz7770]

Similar to the oddball round the Chinese use.

[@waterzap99]

They use that oddball cartridge because the officers were selling off their stocks of Ak ammo. Shocking. I know.

[@charlesburgoyne-probyn6044]

​@@waterzap99by having a proprietary calibre it would limit it's appeal in globalised world also China being so large it has a sense. Seems like the world is going back to the 19th century when so many nations had their own calibre

[@humansvd3269]

​@waterzap99 the Chinese wanted a 5.8 round since the 80s. It just took them awhile because the type 81 wasn't really cutting it.

[@girohuang5196]

African countrys like M43 ammo nowadays 😊

[@lobanov2454]

Russian engineers working now on new round..6.02×41. Reason of 5.45 was simply responding to NATO 5.56..

[@BloPsy_Actual]

Title - about Russians Thumbnail - Romanian Pm md. 65

[@dipteshish]

So tell me bout Soviet Union

[@BloPsy_Actual]

@@dipteshish Romania was never a part of the USSR.

[@Vekren]

Yea I thought I was tripping, older games I played such as James Bond Goldeneye the caliber for the cartridge was 7.62 then years later games like Stalker had AKM with 5.45 rounds. So they did change it.

[@dumpsterchild5734]

It wasn't the maker from the AK-47 it was because of caption American life like the M16 using the 556 but the Russians want to use something similar smaller caliber especially it was a lot better later and you can carry a whole lot more than a 7.62 you could carry about double the amount of rounds the more ammunition the better you are off anyways

[@mirekslechta7161]

6 mm new round is good for rifles like Dragunov and it is far better than USA´s 6,8mm(it has very heavy recoil). However the original 5,45 is still the best choice for the average soldier who would use it under 300m distances almost every time....

[@buddermonger2000]

Well no now given increases in optics, they'll actually be engaging at longer distances. They're not going to be designated marksmen, but prism optics give them more range than iron sights which is the pervious paradigm

[@mirekslechta7161]

@@buddermonger2000 Imagine yourself in Ukraine...., tall grass will not let you shoot in a good stabilised prone position, while standing you might get hit by enemy...and standing position is very unstable, so even with optick it would be hard to shoot accurately at longer distances while standing ...

[@buddermonger2000]

@mirekslechta7161 I mean you're mostly in trenches and tree-lines. Which do actually let you get that. The biggest limitation on engagement distance is visibility. It's not that hard to shoot once you can see it in your rifle's sights. And you can stabilize on a tree.

[@Longshot88]

We have a round called the 6.5 grendel and have for years. It fits in our AR/M4 platforms easily and is vastly more powerful than 5.56, with people very often shooting accurately past 800m. For something the size of a small carbine, that is unbeatable. And recoil does not matter if you train as you should.

[@neverendingmods]

Kalashnikov didn't want to switch to 5.45x39. He said in his biography for The History Channel that the 7.62x39 was the caliber the AK was designed for and what works best for combat. He did not agree with 5.45x39mm being used in his platform. Side note: The US ditched 5.56 because in Afghanistan there were too many instances of insurgents getting hit in upper body, chest area, with multiple rounds and still being in the fight. US troops began shooting insurgents in the head, from pretty far distances w/the 5.56, to put them down right away. So many insurgents were being shot in the head by US troops using optics that there was an inquiry to see if US troops were executing insurgents at close range. They were found to be distance shots to the head and no point blank executions were committed. But 5.56 can't stop people high on methamphetamines. It doesn't have knock down, stopping power.

[@Mythos-pd6px]

I've heard this directly from a solider, 5 rounds to the chest and the guy popped back up and started running at him, took a further 3.

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

Tell me you only shoot guns in video games without telling me you only shoot guns in video games...

[@dale27488]

Nonsense

[@MTMILITIAMAN7.62]

@@Mythos-pd6px My grandpa tagged a 100 pound malnurished and half frozen Commie with .50 BMG in Korea, and he jumped right back up as well. I guess by your standards .50 cal doesn't have enough "stopping power?" The bottom line is that nothing is guaranteed and stopping power is a myth, unless you want to start talking about high explosives. The way mammalian physiology works anyone or anything so inclined can stay standing or fight for seconds or minutes after sustaining lethal injury. I've seen it hunting, and I've seen it in three combat tours. Nothing is 100% effective, you shouldn't expect it to be, and we didn't train for it to be. I actually grew quite fond of the M16, and the 5.56mm earned a healthy respect from me. If you do your job, it will do its job. Indian, not arrow. Most of the complaints you hear are compensating for shitty marksmanship or are from unrealistic expectations held by kids whose only experience with firearms prior to deployment are movies and video games.

[@shockwavecity]

@@Mythos-pd6px Gee, it's almost like if you manage to miss any of the extremely vital "instant knockdown" spots (head, sever spinal cord, heart, etc), you won't get an instant knockdown. Furthermore, we're never going to hear anything from the NGSW ever again. The optic is going to be the only takeaway from that program. 5.56 isn't going ANYWHERE any time soon.

[@josepholiver6733]

Iv seen channels were people shoot 5.54x39 into clear gel blocks and the way the round acs in the gel is not only cool but the thought of being shot with one is in a way scary. Its a very very devastating round when hitting a live target

[@AbdulRahman-bi1nu]

1:34 YOUNG ALEX JONES

[@nekoill]

Why? Because it weighs less and has a more ballistic trajectory; these alone are reasons enough to switch. Also, never heard of this "new calibre" Russia supposedly adopted, and I don't believe that's the case.

[@tonieistotne9471]

not adopted testing

[@thatguy1080]

It is the experimental 6.02x41mm cartridge for use with the AK-22. It's supposed to compete with the U.S. Army's new 6.8x51mm for their new SIG Rifle and LMG.

[@YTPrule]

​@@thatguy1080 Why do that? There's much controversy about that new US bullet.

[@jasonkerbs806]

​@YTPrule I believe it may be because of the rapid evolution of military PPE(body armor, etc.) that some military powers are sort of reverting to larger, battle rifle type calibers, albeit new designs. Also because of lessons learned in more recent conflicts such as Afghanistan for the US and the ongoing war in Ukraine in Russias case.

[@jasonkerbs806]

It's in trials, not adopted.

[@ninjabiatch101]

"What new caliber did they use to replace it?" Well I hope not those darts. Lol

[@WillScaryForCandy]

I'm going to put a copyright strike claim on all your videos using my footage if you don't give me credit. Multiple of your videos you have stolen my footage from my videos without permission or credit.

[@casperarms]

Um… your videos are literally listed in my descriptions…

[@mflambert]

I thought they settled on the 227 FURY

[@josephkush1032]

That's sig saur new rifle for US army

[@DasOrmur]

The military designation for 277 fury is 6.8x51mm.

[@brandonsaquariumsandterrar8985]

Where are you from that's a cool accent?

[@VolkovVelikan]

Eastern Europe

[@thekraken1173]

I think he is Russian

[@casperarms]

This is what the voice of a Russian sounds like, trying at least a little to understand the pronunciation of the English language, and not trying to read English in Russian letters, like in the movies)) Please excuse me for my grammar, I'm very bad at it

[@Johnathan.David.Trewhitt.]

​@@casperarmsVery clear accent, did u go to university?

[@notisac3149]

​@@casperarmsAs an American, your pronunciation and grammar are fine; I had no difficulty understanding you at all. Understanding one another really is the biggest thing, so I wouldn't worry too too much about the nitty gritty details, though improvement even for a native speaker isn't a bad thing at all.

[@geneotrexler8246]

Good video 👍

[@randomargument972]

Not even every cheff uses single type of knife. So, various calibers have varous advantages and disadvantages, all tools for the right job with prefrence to each at different tasks.

[@richardlahan7068]

The Soviets were impressed with the wounding characteristics of the US 5.56x45 M193 round used in Vietnam and decided that they needed a high velocity, small caliber round so they adopted the 5.45x39 in 1974.

[@Rebellion90s]

It's not a mistake, it's called 'adaptation' and 'experimentation'. Experimentation for most of the time didn't end in the lab and the testing field, it happened in the real-uncontrolled testing field. The solid evident of adaptation and experimentation we can see today is the Russian Turtle Tank. Sooner or later the 6mm cartridges will be obsolete and then they might come up with the new platform that chamber 7.62x54R or go wild with 9mm supersonic or wilder the Brandon Herrera's AK-50 Russian Edition chambering 12.7x108 or just entering sci-fi zone with laser weaponry or railgun. Something you invented and you think it's a masterpiece become obsolete 30 years later is no surprise unless it was something marvelous like the AKM and M1911

[@philipfreeman72]

What do you think about the 8.6 with 1 turn in 3 ? Pretty spectacular in gel .

[@Native_love]

Mikhail Kalashnikov was a GENIUS! If he had been born in the USA he would have been a multimillionaire because of his invention. Instead the USSR gave him a few medals. He truly was a genius!

[@Sare204]

So.... they developed their own version of 6mmARC... hm....seems like a good choice actually

[@blueband8114]

Very interesting video

[@camgere]

It's not the caliber of the rifle it's the caliber of the nation waging war. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

[@Julian-z5p2t]

Can you make more videos about uniforms soviet and russian and equipment related to it? Curret war in ukraine makes it really complicated.

[@edwardspan396]

That new battle rifle DC approved will never replace the intermediate ar.

[@wabush01]

Hello and welcome to forgotten weapons.

[@MiliMo101]

The 7.62* is a intermediate round that fires at approximately 2,347 feet per second at A Slightly curved ark resonating from the barrels trajectory. The change in in round was due to competition from nato. Fortunately the Soviet forefathers made More AKs and it’s corresponding round to match all the grains of sand on earth. Rendering the (arguably) modest 5.56 concentration properties negligible and not worth considering (don’t fix it if it ain’t broke).

[@ADobbin1]

For the same reason Nato replaced the 7.62 with 5.56 for their battle rifle. You could carry more ammo for the same weight and their is less recoil when firing.

[@petesheppard1709]

VERY interesting--thanks!

[@LavitosExodius]

5.56, 5.45, 7.62x39 as well as 7.62 NATO aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Russia will learn the same thing the US has with the new 6.8 round. Sure it can defeat armor and theirs no question it performs all of those other calibers mentioned previously. But it is also extremely expensive. That is a problem because what makes 5.56 so viable is the tons of civilian AR's chambered in 5.56 that are also very affordable. This allows the military to tap into the civilian market with surplus to recoup cost. The new rifle probably won't be that cheap anytime soon and .277sig/6.8 Fury also won't be that cheap anytime soon. So, in short until the new caliber and guns become affordable the previous cartridges will still have life. Never forget 5.7x28 was supposed to be a wonder cartridge as well and it is if you can own a proper P90. But other then that it never really took off and is only really starting to get some traction in the US due the efforts of Kel-Tec, Ruger, Smith and Wesson, and PSA to make guns that fire it affordable. That in turn will make it more sought after which will let the economy of scale start to actually be a thing for it. Why is that important you ask? Militaries love it when they can save a buck due to others helping foot the bill. That's also just talking about the US military mainly. The Russian military is even more tight with it's purse strings.

[@minhducnguyen9276]

The problem with armor piercing bullets is you need sufficient Kinetic energy and hardness of the bullets to penetrate modern armor. Which means you need heavy bullets and the mean to accelerate them as fast as possible. But there's a limit to how fast the bullets can be accelerated until it becomes too demanding for the gun barrels. This means to keep the speed at workable levels the bullets have to be heavy enough which means either using bigger bullets or making them out of tungsten. This is where the russian and western designers diverge. In the west they use tungsten to make the bullets heavier and harder but most dedicated russian armor piercing bullets are usually bigger bullets with a hardened steel tip like the subsonic 9×39 or 12.7×55. I think the Russian realized that using tungsten on a large scale is too expensive as tungsten is both expensive to produce and to machine. Putting hardened steel tips on 5.45 worked fine for the Russians seeing that you're gonna shoot a ton of them anyway and if you really need high penetrating power you might as well get a bigger gun, something that fires 7.62×54. Development in 5.7 almost stagnated. They already push the caliber to the limit but even as early as near the end of the cold war, armor that can withstand the highest penetration level of 5.7 was already available, at least in sufficient numbers for Russian paratroopers. The 5.7 simply lost its main purpose when armor that can stop it became more available.

[@lairdsteele2817]

The ak is never obsolete, just the ammo

[@fuze3107]

honestly by looking at the charts the answer might be simple just create a 7.62x39 mm round with better velocity (around 800 + m/s) and accuracy (much flatter trajectory) and that might be have better performance than 6 mm ammo. and honestly anything over 500 meters in modern day is for the Marksman rifles or Sniper rifles (well SVD exists for that ) and there are tons of weapon that fire 7.62x39 and parts for it so it will overall be cheaper and more importantly wouldn't impact russia's logistics and resupply as much as new round.

[@babd3121]

6.5x39 this is also the size of the grendel.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

Increasing the velocity of the 7.62X39 round would be very difficult to obtain without lengthening the case, or alternatively Increasing the operating pressure. It's a no -go without extensive and expensive research and development.

[@averagezombie125]

@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 7.62x54 has entered the chat

[@gamerbg294]

​@@averagezombie125here we are talking about an intermediate rifle caliber and not a full powered rifle caliber (which coincidentally is obsolete, as it is rimmed)

[@gamerbg294]

You may not understand why they are doing this, firstly, the use of optical devices has made it possible for soldiers to engage in combat at greater distances, and there are scenarios in which combat is more distant (for example in the mountains, like in Afghanistan), lastly and possibly the biggest reason is that this ammunition is being designed to be shared with the light machine gun, which is where this ammunition will have a significant impact. Furthermore, it is not so simple to improve the performance of ammunition, as with a 6mm projectile it is possible to achieve a very good ballistic coefficient (to reduce the loss of velocity over distance) and keeping the projectile weight low so that the momentum of the shot is smaller and consequently the recoil (in addition to the weight of the ammunition which is also reduced) compared to 7.62 ammunition.

[@philgiglio7922]

I foresee ammunition foul ups in the future Standardizing NATO cartridges assured that ammunition was compatible between armies. Old M14s were pulled out of storage and the actions were fitted onto modern synthetic stocks and put in service in Afghanistan; they needed the extra reach the 7.62x51 gave them. Ammunition was NOT an issue.

[@swisscheeseneutral6820]

Where do you find stock footage like this?

[@casperarms]

It's a damn gold mine😖I have processed over 900 videos, trailers and documentaries. Moreover, in one video, which runs for 5-7 minutes, there may be only a few seconds of good shots

[@konstancemakjaveli]

I'll stay skeptical until i actually see it in public without all the hype, knowing how big of a failure AK-12 was

[@g0679]

Someone told them it would make their winkies look bigger.

[@titiparisien7485]

After the 2015 terrorist attacks in France, the GIGN (tactical team of the Gendarmerie) adopted Bren II assault rifles in 7,62x39 because it has more stopping power than 5,56.

[@Longshot88]

Those guys also must not have been using armor, because 7.62x39 absolutely falls flat in that realm.

[@sonofkarma5461]

The AK is still one of the best rifles ever created

[@joshuaking1516]

Hey,this video was very nice. Could you make a video on muskets and more specifically about their production in imperial russia

[@casperarms]

Thank you very much!) I am engaged in reviewing and interesting facts from the world of modern weapons, the period of the 20th-21st century. In addition, the deeper you go into history, the more difficult it is to find good shots, photos and videos to make a good picture, so it is unlikely that you will be able to implement this idea here

[@joshuaking1516]

​@@casperarms still thank you very much for taking the time to respond.😊

[@Klovaneer]

M43's speed makes it harder to hit with and bumping it up to 900 m/s will make the rifle too heavy and hard recoiling. Meanwhile 5,45 is starting to be too wimpy in the face of kevlar so adding a pair of grams to the bullet sounds like a good choice. MTK might not have been able to go on record in soviet times but he never said anything of the sort after as well. Remember that russians don't have the M249 problem as they use PKM in that role so there is no need for .277 fury class of cartridge. Also, subsonic 7.62x39 was replaced by 9x39.

[@pariscommune9742]

Why 9 mm was never considered as ideal calibre ? It fits in pistol, machine pistol and rifle as common

[@tedkrasicki3857]

Barrel length determines the powder choice as maximum pressure should occur at 80% of travel. Short barrel, fast burning powder. Long barrel, slower burning powder.

[@taterbug70]

There is still so much that 30 caliber can do and the round can be made hotter/faster

[@Klovaneer]

ah yes, battle rifles worked out so well

[@gabrielp.2758]

Great video! Would you be able to share sources for the background footage and photos? Thanks.

[@casperarms]

One of the things that I don't like about many KZbinrs is that the descriptions under their videos look quite chaotic. I don't mind anything, but I really want it to look beautiful for me, like the facade of a house or something. So, I spent several hours and finally made the description form that I'm going to implement. There I will post a brief explanation of what I am talking about in the video, as well as links to some videos (the most significant and colorful) + links to several types of advertisers that I will represent. Everything is ready, all that remains is to give it to the translator for verification so that he does everything grammatically correctly, and after that it will be possible to update the descriptions on all my videos. P.S. For all concerned - YES, OXIDE WILL BE THERE TOO 😅

[@gabrielp.2758]

Legend! Thank you.@@casperarms

[@inasatok]

And why does it matter if it shoots for 800m instead of 500? Like the average soldier is barely shooting above 300m. Especially with ironsights or no magnification optics you can forget hitting anything on porpuse after 300m. The 7.62x39 was a great caliber there is a reason why loads of nations still use it, because of its stopping power. The real reason they changed to the 5.45 even though it wasnt good in longer ranges because its cheaper. Ranges are not really considered in intermediate cartridges because it doesnt matter, there are separate weapons and calibers for that ranges, you dont need a rifle that shoot for 800m but kicks like a mule and you cant even shoot normallly in sub 50m with it.

[@whitescar2]

What are the chances of this going through? Russia has been trying to modernize its AK platform and the newest attempt was the AK-12. A weapon which is worse than what you can build from off-the-shelf components on the market. Lots of hype about various new rifles with fancy recoil mitigation systems and whatnot, but next to no actual production. In combat, we've seen mobilized personnel issued AK-47s (well, AKMs to be pedantic) and the majority of troops use AK-74s, not even the AK-12s as they're supposed to. Considering the use of small arms, the ability to hit a target is much more important than lethality at the target. Ok, so you didn't drop the enemy soldier through his body armor at 500 yds. But he still probably went down and is having a significant emotional event as he is patting down his plate to see if he's injured or not. Probably took the wind out of his sails too. Aim a little lower and you hit him in the gut and that's a 100% casualty. What are you giving up for this? A whole new logistics chain for the new ammo, which in real terms needs to be supplied next to existing 7.62 and 5.45 rounds. You also give up ammo count on the soldier, while adding weight. Which means that the troops can do less of the thing 99% of war ammo is used on: suppressive fire. I seriously doubt the benefits of these heavy rounds if they start to diminish ammo count. From Iraq experience, 300+ rounds per soldier could easily be used up in a single engagement. If Russian soldiers are equipped with fewer rounds, that means their ability to perform combat tasks diminishes. Once they've used up their ammo, their advance stops. And even if your round can do more damage when it hits, if you're prioritizing getting more bullet instead of upgrading optics to every single soldier, you're focusing on the wrong multiplier.

[@georgejpg]

zero. they do not have even close to enough industrial capacity to phase out 7.62 weapons. within a decade they'll have barely made 100,000 rifles, all bound to have significant reliability and quality control issues. they'll be forgotten and quietly brushed under the rug as if it never happened.

[@buddermonger2000]

6.02x41, given the dimensions, is unlikely to be a significantly heavier cartridge. And in fact, based on the fact that it's a 6mm design, is likely lower in weight than 7.62x39 and thus allowing for more ammo per soldier, while also being more accurate

[@whitescar2]

@@buddermonger2000 The current standard is the 5.45, not the 7.62. So it will be heavier than the current benchmark as both the bullet diameter and cartridge length are larger. Also, looking at the graphs, the energy advantage for the 6.02 overcomes the 5.45 only after 200 meters and does not come significant until 400 maybe 500 meters. In real-world terms, these are lucky shots if they hit in a combat scenario. Normal riflemen, especially without magnified optics, do not make 400 meter shots on unco-operative targets on the regular. Again skewing the focus on volume rather than impact. It's better to send more bullets at something 400 meters away than focus on trying to cause maximal effect if you happen to hit it. If you are concerned with the latter, increase the number of designated marksmen in the squad. It seems like a very modest improvement in ballistic performance over the current 5.45 with severe costs associated. Body armor does not cover that much of a soldier's frontage to be a problem and a hit to the shoulder/gut/thigh/face are all equally useful in causing the desired effect of a bullet on the enemy combatant. I.e. taking them out of the immediate fight.

[@buddermonger2000]

@whitescar2 The biggest factor is that almost all soldiers should have magnified optics at this point. They're very cheap compared to the past, and at this point well worth the expense. With that as a factor, it does make sense to simply switch the ammo for a very modest weight increase. They're more effective when they do hit as well. The costs with regards to logistics are probably less severe than currently discussed, simply because ammunition changes have happened before. Russia especially has quite a lot of different ammunition types for certain scenarios. The biggest factor is that you have to commit to the conversion, or else it will indeed affect you later on as you don't yet have the stockpiles. But you can create them. Also, best to not do so during wartime. That is likely the worst scenario unless you have the industry to do it or it's simply that imperative as you're in a strange and ridiculous situation where your ammo is simply ineffective in completing the mission.

[@MultiKbarry]

@@buddermonger2000 We literally saw that Russia could not equip all its soldiers with optics at the outset. This also assumes that scopes don’t get flogged in transition.

[@TheXtro101]

One reason why the Soviets decided to adopt a whole new assault rifle cartridge is 'cause what the US involvement during the Vietnam war during the 1960s caused with the M16,small caliber and high velocity(also small cal.causes soft or low impulse when fired on full automatic).Quoting from a firearms expert from a late 1990s tv documentary series about the history of assault rifles,"all firearms makers have same philosophy:small caliber light rifle short range"(during W.W.2 German troops experience most urban fire fights within 300 yards/meters). The Soviets saw what the M16 & its 5.56×45mm can do and thought,"we need to catch up and not to lag behind"